Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />002506 <br /> <br />8.5 percent of the values were in the range of 800,000 acre-feet, plus or minus 50,000 acre- <br />feet. <br /> <br />Figure E30 compares the average and range of mean monthly flow depths below Davis Dam <br />for the past 15 years versus the next 15 years. Flow depth is computed using the discharge- <br />elevation rating for the gaging station located about 1 mile below Davis Dam. Again, the <br />average and range in flow depth is similar for the two periods for the reasons given above. <br /> <br />Figure E31 shows how the projected 120,000 non-flood mean monthly flow depths below <br />Davis Dam are distributed as percent of values within 0.5 feet increments. For example <br />about 22 percent of the flow depths were in the range of 7 feet, plus or minus 0.25 feet. <br /> <br />Figure E32 shows the monthly target elevations for Lake Mohave. Because the simulation <br />model always uses these elevations to compute releases, a comparison of historical vs <br />projected would be a comparison with these target elevations. <br /> <br />Comparison of Projected vs Historical Operations for Lake Havasu/Parker Dam <br /> <br />Figure E33 compares the average, maximum, and minimum monthly release as a monthly <br />volume in units of 1000 acre-feet for Parker Dam for non-flood control years for the past <br />15 years versus the projected next 15 years. The overall comparison shows that within the <br />accuracy of the simulation model, the projected 15 year period is very similar to the past <br />15 year period in both range in monthly release and average release for the two periods. <br />This should be expected given the high variability of both water use and hydrologic gains <br />below Parker Dam including the Gila River of the past 15 years. <br /> <br />Figure E34 shows how the projected 120,000 non-flood monthly release volumes for Parker <br />Dam are distributed as percent of values within 50,000 acre-feet increments. For example <br />13.5 percent of the values were in the range of 800,000 acre-feet, plus or minus 25,000 acre- <br />feet. <br /> <br />Figure E35 compares the average and range of mean monthly flow depths below Parker Dam <br />for the past 15 years versus the next 15 years. Flow depth is computed using the discharge- <br />elevation rating for the gaging station located at Parker Dam. Again, the average and range <br />in flow depth is similar for the two periods for the reasons given above. <br /> <br />Figure E36 shows how the projected 120,000 non-flood mean monthly flow depths below <br />Parker Dam are distributed as percent of values within 0.5 feet increments. For example <br />about 12 percent of the flow depths were in the range of 4 feet, plus or minus 0.25 feet. <br /> <br />Figure E37 shows the monthly target elevations for Lake Havasu. Because the simulation <br />model always uses these elevations to compute releases, a comparison of historical vs. <br />projected would be a comparison with these target elevations. <br /> <br />Appendix E - 8 <br />